Tweet
AFTER UKRAINE, AFGHANISTAN TO SPLIT UP? NEVER SAY NEVER...
The Times of Central Asia
March 12, 2014 Wednesday
Could the republics of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan see
some unofficial territory move from Afghanistan into their respective
domains? It could be considered a lot less imaginary than it looks
at first sight.
Due to America's intervention following the September 11 attacks on the
USA - orchestrated by mainly Middle-East based terrorist groups with
only a sideline leading to Afghanistan, the latter country has seen
a wall put up around it for about a decade. Now, with the departure
of the Americans and their allies, that wall is due to crumble. With
Tajik, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and even Kazakh communities dominating
the northern regions and no Pashtun, the Taliban's ethnic basis,
to speak of in sight, the scenario looks quite possible.
It could well lead to the country falling apart, with its northern
provinces, on which the Taliban, even while officially in power,
could never get any grip to speak of, seeking refuge under the
unofficial umbrellas of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan,
in turn supported by the Kremlin with a silent nod from China. The
government in Kabul might well cry wolf over it, but what happened
earlier in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova and is now happening
in Ukraine could even more easily happen in northern (and possibly
western) Afghanistan accompanied by protests of officials around the
globe - only to turn the page next and let things stay as they are.
With American's tanks and warplanes removed from the scene, what could
be left of Afghanistan has little hope to find support elsewhere. It
is not a member of the only military supranational organisation in
the region, the CSTO, and within the sole conglomerate on a larger
scale, the Shanghai-Six, it is only a backbencher. This means that
geopolitically speaking, the Kabul regime stands virtually alone and
will remain in a lose-lose situation should any separatist move be
carried out.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)'s core members are Russia,
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - the latter
having joined the pact at a later stage. Observer states are India,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia, while Belarus, Turkey and
Sri Lanka have the status of "dialogue partners".
"The main goals of the SCO are strengthening mutual confidence and
good-neighbourly relations among the member countries; promoting
effective cooperation in politics, trade and economy, science and
technology, culture as well as education, energy, transportation,
tourism, environmental protection and other fields; making joint
efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the
region, moving towards the establishment of a new, democratic, just
and rational political and economic international order," official
documentation reads.
The Collective Security Treaty (CST) dates from 1992 and consists
of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian
Federation and Tajikistan. "According to the Treaty the member
states maintain their security on collective basis, CSTO official
documentation reads. "Article 2 of the Treaty claims: "In case a threat
to security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or several
Member States or a threat to international peace and security Member
States will immediately put into action the mechanism of joined
consultations with the aim to coordinate their positions and take
measures to eliminate the threat that has emerged."
Simultaneously Article 4 stipulates the following: "In case an act
of aggression is committed against any of the Member States all
the others Member States will provide it with necessary assistance,
including military one, as well as provide support with the means at
their disposal in exercise of the right to collective defense." This
could well include "protection" of brethren in northern Afghanistan
perfectly after the Crimea's example.
So where does rhetoric end and reality begin? The Crimea conflict
represents a mere repetition of the formations of several other
self-styled mini-states in the region, namely the so-called
Trans-Diestr republic in Moldova, the Georgian breakaway
regions of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia and the Azeri territory
of Nagorno-Karabakh. Whereas the three former are under Russia's
protection, the fourth is chaperoned by Armenia.
In the first three cases, America (which for all it matters has carried
out pretty similar operations in Latin America for more than a century)
has preferred to look the other way with the aim not to offend Moscow,
whereas in the last case a strong Armenian lobby both in Russia
and the USA has consolidated the stalemate. In Azerbaijan because
of its oil reserves Washington would have had a stronger motive to
push for the return of its lost territories, whereas Ukraine has no
such advantage. Nor has Afghanistan. In all: words do come easy -
deeds simply don't.
The Times of Central Asia
March 12, 2014 Wednesday
Could the republics of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan see
some unofficial territory move from Afghanistan into their respective
domains? It could be considered a lot less imaginary than it looks
at first sight.
Due to America's intervention following the September 11 attacks on the
USA - orchestrated by mainly Middle-East based terrorist groups with
only a sideline leading to Afghanistan, the latter country has seen
a wall put up around it for about a decade. Now, with the departure
of the Americans and their allies, that wall is due to crumble. With
Tajik, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and even Kazakh communities dominating
the northern regions and no Pashtun, the Taliban's ethnic basis,
to speak of in sight, the scenario looks quite possible.
It could well lead to the country falling apart, with its northern
provinces, on which the Taliban, even while officially in power,
could never get any grip to speak of, seeking refuge under the
unofficial umbrellas of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan,
in turn supported by the Kremlin with a silent nod from China. The
government in Kabul might well cry wolf over it, but what happened
earlier in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova and is now happening
in Ukraine could even more easily happen in northern (and possibly
western) Afghanistan accompanied by protests of officials around the
globe - only to turn the page next and let things stay as they are.
With American's tanks and warplanes removed from the scene, what could
be left of Afghanistan has little hope to find support elsewhere. It
is not a member of the only military supranational organisation in
the region, the CSTO, and within the sole conglomerate on a larger
scale, the Shanghai-Six, it is only a backbencher. This means that
geopolitically speaking, the Kabul regime stands virtually alone and
will remain in a lose-lose situation should any separatist move be
carried out.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)'s core members are Russia,
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - the latter
having joined the pact at a later stage. Observer states are India,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia, while Belarus, Turkey and
Sri Lanka have the status of "dialogue partners".
"The main goals of the SCO are strengthening mutual confidence and
good-neighbourly relations among the member countries; promoting
effective cooperation in politics, trade and economy, science and
technology, culture as well as education, energy, transportation,
tourism, environmental protection and other fields; making joint
efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the
region, moving towards the establishment of a new, democratic, just
and rational political and economic international order," official
documentation reads.
The Collective Security Treaty (CST) dates from 1992 and consists
of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian
Federation and Tajikistan. "According to the Treaty the member
states maintain their security on collective basis, CSTO official
documentation reads. "Article 2 of the Treaty claims: "In case a threat
to security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or several
Member States or a threat to international peace and security Member
States will immediately put into action the mechanism of joined
consultations with the aim to coordinate their positions and take
measures to eliminate the threat that has emerged."
Simultaneously Article 4 stipulates the following: "In case an act
of aggression is committed against any of the Member States all
the others Member States will provide it with necessary assistance,
including military one, as well as provide support with the means at
their disposal in exercise of the right to collective defense." This
could well include "protection" of brethren in northern Afghanistan
perfectly after the Crimea's example.
So where does rhetoric end and reality begin? The Crimea conflict
represents a mere repetition of the formations of several other
self-styled mini-states in the region, namely the so-called
Trans-Diestr republic in Moldova, the Georgian breakaway
regions of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia and the Azeri territory
of Nagorno-Karabakh. Whereas the three former are under Russia's
protection, the fourth is chaperoned by Armenia.
In the first three cases, America (which for all it matters has carried
out pretty similar operations in Latin America for more than a century)
has preferred to look the other way with the aim not to offend Moscow,
whereas in the last case a strong Armenian lobby both in Russia
and the USA has consolidated the stalemate. In Azerbaijan because
of its oil reserves Washington would have had a stronger motive to
push for the return of its lost territories, whereas Ukraine has no
such advantage. Nor has Afghanistan. In all: words do come easy -
deeds simply don't.